Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052305PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 23, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the May 23, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived 8:05 p.m.), Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 9, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Auran noted that since Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica would be arriving about an hour late, for quorum reasons two items need to be moved to later in the agenda; because of where they live Cers. Auran and Osterling have to recuse themselves from Item 1b on the consent calendar, 1329 DeSoto Avenue, and Item 2 on the regular action calendar, 1353 Vancouver Avenue, so there will not be a quorum without the absent commissioners. C. Brownrigg had also requested that Item 6, 345 Lorton Avenue, be moved to the end of the action calendar to a time when he can participate in the hearing. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1A. 1419 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KOBERT SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1C. 1532 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND MARY JO NEJASMICH) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM MAY 9, 2005, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1D. 209 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT A. WOLF, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEBORAH RUSH, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 2 1E. 1109 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (IRENE AND FRANKIE GONZALEZ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1F. 12 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL HOWARD AND FRANK MARINERO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (93 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Auran noted that Item 1B, 1329 De Soto Avenue, will be acted on later when a quorum is present. He asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran noted that she would recuse herself from the vote on Item 1C, 1532 Bernal Avenue, since she lives within 500 feet of the project. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from voting on Item 1E, 1109 Balboa Avenue, because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Chair Auran called for a motion on the projects remaining on the consent calendar, 1A, 1419 Columbus Avenue, 1D, 209 Dwight Road; and 1F, 12 Park Road. C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1A, 1419 Columbus Avenue, 1D, 209 Dwight Road; and 1F, 12 Park Road and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). The voice vote on 1C, 1532 Bernal Avenue passed on a 4-0-1-2 vote (C. Keighran abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent. The voice vote on 1E, 1109 Balboa Avenue, passed on a 4-0-1-2 vote (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG AND BERNADETTE CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, and Bernadette Canniffe, property owner, commented on the project, and noted that when going through the design solutions for the front porch area with the design review consultant, they came up with Option 4, which is favored by the homeowner, and Option 5, which is recommended by the design review consultant. The homeowner prefers Option 4 because this arrangement integrates the notch at the top, reduces the mass and bulk, and integrates with the arbor at the rear of the house. However, the design review consultant felt that solution was not what the Commission was looking for based on the minutes of the study meeting, so he is recommending Option 5. Commissioners asked if the design reviewer's comments were based only on the Commission's comments or does it also reflect his own opinion. The applicant noted that he thought it reflected both. Commissioners asked the applicant to describe how Option 4 would tie in to the unroofed slot on the existing porch, and why is there only one column on the porch, could there be another column on the right side to balance. The applicant noted that the arbor will infill the slot and hooks the two roofs City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 3 together; the eaves will be cut back so that the trellis will extend straight back; the living room wall is at the front setback, so cannot place a column structure in front of that. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Like Option 4, with the heavy wood below the railing, like the openness of Option 4, is consistent with the trellis at the rear and the railings above do a better job of hiding the mass, Option 5 is closed and not as appealing. Disagree, prefer Option 5, it provides a dry porch with a cover rather than wet porch with open trellis when it is raining; but two posts versus one would look more balanced, is there a way to add a false post for symmetry, overall Option 5 is better looking. C. Deal moved to approve the application incorporating Option 4, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 10, 2004 sheets 1 through 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, and building elevations; with the revisions to the front and left facades as shown plans May 13, 2005, sheets 3 thru 5, floor plans and building elevations noted Option #4; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, and the City Engineer’s January 26, 2004 memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 7) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with Option 4. The motion passed on a 3-2- 2 roll call vote (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling dissenting, Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GILBERT FITZGERALD AND CAROL MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that they had attempted to make site visits to view the story poles from Mr. Ehler's property at 1527 Alturas, but were not able to schedule a time. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 4 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Peter Breslin, 1539 Alturas Drive, neighbor noted that he had purchased his property in April, it is to the north on the downhill side from this project, family spends a lot of time in the yard and enjoy the privacy, concerned with the building of the accessory structure, it will have an imposing presence and will have intrusive views into our bedroom; have had meetings with the owner, he has agreed to plant trees and shrubs as a privacy screen, if this is done, would agree to the project, but would like the provision to be made a part of the approval to be assured that if the property were sold, the conditions would be upheld; also concerned that the structure might be used as a guest house. Jack Matthews, project architect, 335A Fourth Avenue, San Mateo, noted that he had listened to the comments of the neighbor, the applicant is prepared to build a fence to the allowed height to provide screening, will also plant shrubbery and trees to provide privacy; can't avoid natural features of the property, applies to the neighbor to the left as well; took the suggestion of the Commission to enclose some of the front porch to take advantage of the views from the living room. Commissioners noted that comments were made at the study meeting regarding the massive amount of trees along the property line and the impact on views, will this be addressed? The applicant noted that they would be willing to trim the trees to enhance the views. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: The comment regarding the tree trimming is a good one and maintenance is appropriate, but is it an appropriate part of this application; as far as the addition to the house, it is well done, the addition nestles in to the house, the special permit for height is justified based on the slope of the lot, the side setback variance is for the continuation of an existing wall, if the project weren't being brought for design review, it would qualify as a minor modification; the one neighbor that is impacted the most by the accessory structure has asked for some conditions to address with privacy. C. Deal made a motion to approve the project with the proposed conditions that the accessory structure not be used for sleeping purposes; that the use of the accessory structure will be subject to the noise ordinance; that shrubs and trees shall be planted between the accessory structure and the neighboring property line to provide a privacy screen and the property owner shall install a seven-foot high fence that meets zoning code requirements; and that the applicant shall trim and maintain the existing trees as determined by the City Arborist so that the pruning enhances the quality of long distant views. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 10, 2005, sheets A-1.1 through AE-3.1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen, there shall be no shower or tub added without an amendment to this conditional use permit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; 4) that no activity in the accessory structure shall exceed the standards established in the Burlingame Noise Ordinance; 5) that shrubs and trees shall be planted between the accessory structure and the neighboring property line to the north to provide a privacy screen, the landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist to ensure the plant materials and location provide an adequate screen; 6) that the applicant shall install a seven-foot high fence (six feet solid board with an additional one foot of lattice) as measured from adjacent grade to provide additional screening along the property line adjacent to the accessory structure; 7) that the existing densely planted trees along the rear property line shall be trimmed and maintained at a height determined by the City Arborist to enhance the quality of long distance views; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 5 engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 12) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 14) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Arborist and Chief Building Official’s memos dated February 18, 2005 shall be met; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 5. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Warren Donald, property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the plans have been improved since the last time it was reviewed, at the study meeting asked that the plate height on the second floor be reduced from 9 to 8 feet, think plate height should be consistent with other projects, this is a tall building, can't see the house because of its location and dense vegetation, but do not want to make the decision based on that, not concerned with the plate height as proposed, it is appropriate with the design. Applicant noted that the existing first floor plate height is tall, feel that the proposed second floor plate height is in keeping with the house. Commission asked if the proposed stairway is in an easement, please clarify. Applicant clarified that the stairway would not be located in the easement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling complimented the applicant for addressing all of the Commissions' concerns and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 11, 2005, sheets A1 through A6 and L1, and date stamped February 11, 2005, Boundary and Partial Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that all existing trees on site, with the exception of the 10-inch diameter City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 6 buckeye to be removed, shall not be removed and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared which documents how each tree within 30 feet of the proposed addition should be protected during construction; this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the property owner shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's report; 3) that the applicant shall apply for and receive a tree removal permit to remove the existing 10-inch diameter buckeye tree, as shown on sheet L1, date stamped May 11, 2005, from the City Arborist prior to issuance of a demolition permit; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 6, 2005, and December 29, 2004, memos, the Fire Marshal's December 21, 2004, memo, the Chief Building Official's December 22, 2004, memo, the Recycling Specialist's December 29, 2004, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 3, 2005, memo shall be met; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. C. Vistica arrived at 8:00 p.m. 7. 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO ADD A HEALTH SERVICE (CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE) TO AN EXISTING ATHLETIC CLUB (PAUL BOLOGNA, APPLICANT; DANIEL CAPRINI, PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Paul Bologna, applicant, 888 Hinckley Road, Burlingame, was available to answer questions. Commissioner noted that the existing space appears to have been built without the proper permits, noted that some work will have to be done to make this space code compliant, asked if any of the walls will be removed; applicant noted that the existing walls will remain, none will be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 7 removed. Staff noted that the Fire and Building Departments reviewed the plans for this space and provided comments, required upgrades will be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Commission asked if any of the clients would also be gym members, do not see an impact to parking if gym members also use this service; applicant noted that up to 50% of his clients would also be members at the gym, it’s a perfect match to be in the gym. Commission asked how is it possible to see 14 clients per day but not more than two at a time. Applicant commented that a client visit can last from 5 to 30 minutes long, 30 minutes per client will be 14 to 16 clients in an 8-hour day. Commission noted that reducing the area of the chiropractic office by 50 SF would reduce the parking variance from two parking spaces to one, looking for a way to reduce the parking variance by one-half, there is a cost to the City to provide parking, asked applicant if the office can be reduced by 50 SF; applicant noted that he would prefer not to reduce the space, 50 SF would probably only become a closet for the gym, also commented that besides himself there would probably be only one other employee and one client on site at any one time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg arrived at 8:05 p.m. Commission discussion: CA Anderson noted that the conditional use permit is for a chiropractic office only, not a health service use in general. C. Auran noted that that parking variance will be reduced by one parking space (from two to one) with the removal of 50 SF from the chiropractic office and that this use will be a complimentary use to the existing gym use and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 2005, floor plan and sheets A-1 through A-3, shall be revised to eliminate a minimum of 50 SF from the chiropractic office, and shall be limited to a maximum area of 750 SF within the existing athletic club; 2) that the 750 SF space within the existing athletic club shall be used only for a chiropractic office and shall be limited to a reception area and treatment area, an associated office and two rooms for x- raying, storage or supplies; any change to this configuration or use of space shall require a conditional use permit amendment; 3) that the chiropractic office may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with a maximum of 4 persons (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees or clients, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 6) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s January 25, 2005 memo, and the Chief Building Official’s and the Recycling Specialist's January 24, 2005, memos shall be met; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 1B. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM MAY 9, 2005, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 8 Chair Auran noted that a quorum is now present for the consent calendar item for 1329 De Soto Avenue, and called for a motion on this project. C. Brownrigg moved approval of this consent calendar item based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report with recommendations in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The voice vote passed 5-0- 2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 2. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERNIE SELANDER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling noted that they would recuse themselves from the discussion on this item, since they both live within 500 feet of the project, and they stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ernie Selander, Architect, 2095 Jerrold, #319, San Francisco, and Frank Schaffer, 1353 Vancouver Avenue, were available to answer questions, and noted that there had been a good interchange with the design review consultant, think it is a better design with the added height which allows the new roof style to match the existing. Commissioners asked for clarification regarding the sun porch off the master bedroom, it is unclear what is happening, what materials are being used and how it ties into the roof, drawings do not clarify. The applicant noted that the porch above the sunroom uses painted wood panels to mimic the materials on the sunroom below, which consists of windows and wood panels. Commissioners noted that the eaves on the garage are shown too close to the property line, will have to be revised, but building code will allow the first rafter to protrude to property line. Concerned about the landscaping, particularly along the driveway, tree is being removed and nothing is shown to replace, would like to see some landscape treatment on this side. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission made the following comments on the project: ▪ Windows are stark in the living room, would like to see mullions on the living room windows and the ones above to set them apart; ▪ Concerned about the wood panels and windows on the sun porch and balcony above, not sure how it is going to look, it is not clear from the plans how the balcony elements will look, would like to see the materials before we approve; ▪ Agree that landscaping needs to be added and shown on the plans; the design in general is good, but as is would like to see revisions; ▪ Would be fine if wood panels become glass on porch above the sun room; ▪ Need to clarify how the windows on the left side of the master bedroom tie into the sloped roof; ▪ Concerned with the second floor plate height, it appears that it is 9'-4" to 9'-6" to the top plate, would rather see a more typical 8'-1" plate height with vaulted ceilings. C. Keighran moved to continue this item to the June 13th Planning Commission meeting with the direction given; the item may be placed on the consent calendar once the information is provided. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 9 Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote. (Cers Auran and Osterling abstaining). Since this item was set to a date certain it will not be renoticed. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 6. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (ANGELINE ASKHAM, BRAYTON, NUGHES AND SMITH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VAL VADEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (88 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 23, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Angeline Askham of Brayton, Hughes and Smith, architect, 639 Howard Street, Suite 1, San Francisco, represented the project and was available to answer questions; recognize that the Planning Commission and neighbors do not want see an impact on the parking even though floor area is increasing, floor area for calculating the parking requirement included the trellis over the deck, actual office area is less, the number of employees (5) will not be increasing, this will be a quiet office space, will bring revenue into the City; Downtown Burlingame parking study indicates that the lot across California Drive from this site is only 54% occupied, there are as many as 100 empty parking spaces in that lot, request that in-lieu fees not be imposed; have met with the president and members of the condominium board, received support from the board; addressed concerns with the light and privacy, existing 1.7 FAR is not at maximum allowed of 3.0, due to the shape of the lot there is no place to add more on-site parking, exterior elevations were revised to address comment about the curve of addition, have curved spandrel glass because there is a structural parapet behind, have cross-sections to show how it works (handed out to Commission); know this building is in a prominent location and would like everyone to be pleased with the design, using opaque glass and matching with the existing brown tint; the condominium board is anxious to get the project built because the building has leaked like a sieve since it was built in 1982, this project would fix the leaks and/or cover the decks that leaked. Commission understands that the additional glass at the top is needed because of structural concerns and asked if the radii can match that of the windows below without impacting interior space, also the mullion pattern does not match existing, there is a lot more glass proposed, could make the top match the rest of the building, the amount of glass on the top floor is significantly more than there is now – why is there so much glass? Architect noted she didn't want to add more mass to the building, wanted to step back, glass is more transparent and would not be as imposing as brick would; in regards to the radii shape, have 8 foot ceiling heights at the 4th floor, if dropped the spring point would lose 12 inches of visual space out of the building, not noticeable from the street level, additional amount of spandrel glass would be more imposing, there are already two to three different radii on the building. Commission commented that as proposed it will look like an addition, glass is dark, asked if different materials were considered? Architect noted that no other materials were considered, the space is claustrophobic, space is surrounded by walls and smaller openings, would like to use open space as much as possible, therefore chose glass to create a more open feel on 4th floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the most important aspect of the application is the request for a parking variance, cannot find any exceptional circumstances to grant the variance, think this would be granting a privilege to a building which had a lesser parking requirement when it was built, not to just one tenant but the whole area, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 10 only way this might work is if in-lieu fees were paid to alleviate the parking impact, the parking available now is there because it has been paid for, can't see any cause to grant a parking variance, asked CA if the in- lieu fee is paid does the parking variance go away? CA noted that the in-lieu fee is a mitigation, the Commission would still need to make findings for the parking variance. Don't see the hardships for a parking variance, this is a building that is already under parked, intensifying the site without mitigating the parking does not make sense; still concerned with the glass and the way it's being handled; the 2002 downtown parking study showed that there is a shortage of 260 parking spaces, don't have guidelines in place to be flexible with parking requirements, this building already is short on parking to accommodate the uses in the building, may get a tenant in the future with more employees, could consider the in-lieu fees but really don't see the exceptional hardship; don't see a problem with the glass, but am concerned with the parking, the building has 21 on-site spaces where 71 is required, and now even more is required for the addition, can't support the request for a variance; can't base the parking impact just on the current owner, must think about future tenants; with the review of the building in 1982, the reasons for granting the height variance was because the building was stepped back and decks were not covered, the proposed glass design does not reflect that, would like to see a different treatment, in regards to the glass, understand that the architect is trying to the hold the view line at 8 feet. CA noted that based on the comments, the Commission may want to deny this project without prejudice to give the applicant an opportunity to come back to the Commission with revisions based on the comments given tonight, rather than waiting one year to resubmit the same project. C. Brownrigg made a motion based on the comments made to deny this project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this project without prejudice which will provide the applicant an opportunity to address both the design and parking issues if she wishes. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Vistica made a motion not to recommend approval of the tentative parcel map to merge the two suites on the fourth floor. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion not to recommend approval of the tentative parcel map. The motion passed on a 7-0. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1609 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FORBAIT LLC, TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commission asked if the angled wall at the rear of the garage was there originally, looks like this space was built without permits, parking variance could be eliminated by removing or adjusting this wall. Designer noted that the concrete slab in this space is eight to nine inches thick, there is a lot of plumbing under the slab, didn't want to touch this area. Commissioners made the following comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 11 ▪ Façades contain elements that are not consistent with the existing house or neighborhood; ▪ Inconsistencies in floor plans and elevations need to be cleared up; ▪ Overall the proportion and massing have been handled well, but concerned with the style changing from simple to a lot of inconsistent features on the front façade that don't follow through, have a major concern with the detailing; ▪ Need to make sure architectural and construction details are carried through all building elevations to match; ▪ Architectural appliqué is inappropriate, strongly discourage stucco foam trim; size of trim molding is too beefy, proportions are not right; there is a lot of simple, elegant architecture in the neighborhood, look at other houses; ▪ Quoins at corners are randomly placed, not really consistent with a simpler design style; ▪ Pilasters and half columns on the front elevation and garage are too much; ▪ House design is going from one extreme to another, mass and bulk is fine, but there are a variety of architectural styles incorporated into one house, style is too grandiose for the neighborhood, needs to be toned down; ▪ Focus on different garage door styles, carriage door for example; eliminate the columns on either side; and ▪ Property owner should clean up property while project is being reviewed, saw overgrown weeds and newspapers while on site visit. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made stating that design review would help to improve the detailing and architectural style of the project. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 9. 25 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (GEORGE SUN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JUAN AND ELSA CONTRERAS, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Vistica recused himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff to clarify the height of the addition; staff noted that the height dimension is not specifically called out on the plans, but noted that the height scales at 14'-9" from adjacent grade. Chair Auran opened the public comment. George Sun, architect, 101 Townsend Street #201, San Francisco, and Juan Contreras, property owner, were available to answer questions, noted that the proposed addition will accommodate a growing family. Commission asked if the proposed project was discussed with the adjacent neighbor to the right, concerned with the impact of a 105' long wall; applicant noted that the neighbors' house is also long and there are existing 15 foot tall hedges between the houses. Commissioners made the following comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 12 ▪ Concerned with the length of the house along the right side property line and the impact it would have on the neighbor, house will be 105' long, addition provides a nice setback for the property owner but the adjacent neighbor will be impacted by this long wall four feet away; ▪ Concerned with the 9'-6" first floor plate height, if second story is added in the future the house will look more massive, concerned with potential mass in the future; ▪ Concerned with the project being inconsistent with the existing house, looks like two separate houses; addition does not reflect the design of the existing house; addition is disjointed, project can be blended in better; ▪ Concerned with the long plain blank wall along the side of the house with very few windows, need to look at ways to break up this wall; ▪ One option is to consider a second story addition rather than adding so much square footage on the first floor; first floor addition takes up a lot of the property; ▪ If the plate height is reduced to match the existing plate height, which is 8'-6", design review would not be required; and ▪ Need to see a more detailed landscape plan, what is shown is low, needs more creativity to screen addition. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments and suggestions made. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Commissioner clarified that if the plate height on the addition is reduced to match the existing plate height (8'-6"), this project would not be subject to design review. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting and C. Vistica abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 10. 800 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARIE BENEDETTI, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project and was available to answer questions, noted that the addition was focused towards the rear of the house. Commission complimented the designer on a great job, overall this is a good project. Commissioners made the following comments: ▪ Staircase design will need to be revised, winding staircase proposed is not allowed by the building code, need to have a minimum tread width of 6 inches, please check the building code and revise plans; ▪ May also want to consider increasing the width of the stairway to make it easier to move furniture; ▪ Concerned with the window box proposed in the second floor bathroom, would like to see something different which is better integrated into the design of the house; and ▪ Proposed windows and window trim should match existing (stucco mold), provide details. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 13 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1808 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CAROLYN AND KEY WAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect, 205 Park Road Suite 203, Burlingame, Michael Shea, 1812 Davis Drive, spoke regarding this project; applicant was available to answer questions, noted that this was not an easy house to add on a second floor, tried to simplify what was existing on the house, removed one of three gables at the front of the house, now have a more balanced roof and centralized the second floor mass. Neighbor noted he was in favor of the project, will be visually appealing and an improvement on this street. Commission noted that the designer has done a nice job; this simple, elegant design blends in quite well with the existing house; appreciate seeing the existing and proposed building elevations side-by-side on the same page. Commissioners made the following comments: ▪ Columns supporting the porch roof are not shown on the floor plans, please revise plans to show; and ▪ If the owners have small children, suggest a safety gate be built at the top of the stairs. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 12. 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID AND HOLLY PARRY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. John Stewart, Stewart Associates, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, and David Parry, property owner, were available to answer questions, noted that the property owner has no problems with replacing the existing solid stucco wall with a redwood fence. Commission noted that this is a difficult house to work with, the design did a good job, what makes this project work well is the stepping back of the mass. Commissioners made the following comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 14 ▪ Suggest adding divided light window panels in the existing garage door to help with the appearance and add natural light into the garage; ▪ Landscape plan needs more work, suggest adding taller trees and shrubs at the corner of Ray Drive and Lassen Way; and ▪ Plans should be revised to show the solid stucco wall removed and replaced with a redwood fence. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 16, 2005. SP Brooks reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 9, 2005. She noted that the Council upheld the Planning Commission's determination regarding the application on 1615 Willow Avenue, and continued the hearing on the appeal of Planning Commission's approval of the application at 1524 Vancouver Avenue to June 6, 2005 and requested Planning staff to arrange a meeting between the applicant and some neighbors to attempt to resolve the differences over design. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1224 Cabrillo Avenue. Commissioners noted that they would like to see a detail of how the trellis is supposed to look on the rear elevation, what happens to the strips of gutter where the trellis is placed over the window? It is hard to tell what it is going to look like, also the front elevation would look better with at least one of the windows having the roof extend down, not necessarily every window; would like to see the original design used for the front left second floor window. Commissioners directed that the requested details and revisions be brought back to the Commission as an information item. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary